while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
---140810074-1319170845-1214996825=:787
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 02:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sue Fraser <xcschild@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@yahoogroups.com
To: Net-Gold <Net-Gold@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Net-Gold] 11th Circuit Sides With National Geographic in Copyrigh=
t
Case
11th Circuit Sides With National Geographic in Copyright Case
R. Robin McDonald
07-02-2008
Law.com
Back-to-back rulings by federal appellate courts in Atlanta and New York=20
favoring the National Geographic Society will allow magazine and newspaper=
=20
publishers to transfer their published archives to computer discs and sell=
=20
them commercially without infringing on freelance contributors'=20
copyrights.
National Geographic won its dual victories after more than a decade of=20
litigation in two federal circuits. The publisher of National Geographic=20
has battled freelance writers and photographers over whether it must pay=20
them additional royalties associated with the sale of "The Complete=20
National Geographic" -- a digital version of the magazine's published=20
archive.
On Monday, Judge Rosemary Barkett, writing the majority opinion for a=20
sharply divided en banc court of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals=20
rejected the claims of a freelance Florida photographer whose work has=20
been published in National Geographic.
Barkett was joined in the majority by fellow circuit judges Joel F.=20
Dubina, Susan H. Black, Edward E. Carnes, Stanley Marcus, William H. Pryor=
=20
Jr. and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch. Judge Frank M. Hull=
=20
recused.
The ruling turned on the extent to which publishers may reprint and=20
distribute previously published photos without infringing on individual=20
photographers' copyrights. Central to that ruling is the definition of a=20
"collective work" to which a freelancer has contributed.
A publisher, according to the en banc majority, may reproduce a freelance=
=20
photographer's work in a reprint of the original collective work (such as=
=20
a magazine, newspaper or encyclopedia) to which that photographer=20
contributed; or a revision of that collective work; or a later collective=
=20
work "in the same series." Reproduction of copyrighted photos in a new=20
work without permission would constitute copyright infringement.
The ruling turns on what constitutes an acceptable revision and what=20
constitutes a new work in light of a 2001 landmark copyright ruling by the=
=20
U.S. Supreme Court. In that ruling, New York Times v. Tasini, the high=20
court determined reprinting freelance writers' articles without permission=
=20
in large computer databases such as Lexis-Nexis infringed freelancers'=20
copyrights.
This week, the 11th Circuit relied on the language of that ruling in=20
deciding that although photographs could not be reprinted in computer=20
databases without permission, they could be republished on CD-ROM or DVD=20
in a reprint of the original work, (in this case, issues of National=20
Geographic) without infringing freelance contributors' copyrights.
<http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=3D1202422703800>
The entire article can be read at the above URL.=A0
[REQUIRES FREE SUBSCRIPTION]
Sincerely,
Sue Fraser
xcschild@yahoo.com
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=3DISED-L
---140810074-1319170845-1214996825=:787--
